SCOTUS allows DNA Collection

[Soxbadger]

No, but the DNA would tell you if I had 1 drop of x blood.

 

The DNA would tell you if I had some sort of recessive trait that they govt deemed unworthy of living/reproducing.

 

Or maybe I figure out some sort of disease/virus/weapon that attacks only people with certain DNA. Or I genetically engineer something to go after those people.

 

I dont like my name on lists, history suggests that I am correct in that thinking.

[southsider2k5]

Like I said, I'm the big government person here, so I'll say again..."to do what?"

 

What would the government do with this information that is so inappropriate?

 

You could obviously come up with some answers, but DNA doesn't tell who you are, it doesn't tell what I'm thinking right now, it doesn't tell when I'm going to decide to go home. The government already is probably collecting this post and having it combed through for keywords at the NSA facilities and that tells a helluva lot more about me than my DNA.

 

The thing that I would really oppose is having the results of DNA tests available to health insurance companies. I'll grant that one, but you're not necessarily going to sequence an entire person's genome to do a criminal test match (in fact that ought to be really unnecessary).

 

What if the government is your insurance company?

[Jenksismyhero]

Like I said, I'm the big government person here, so I'll say again..."to do what?"

 

What would the government do with this information that is so inappropriate?

 

You could obviously come up with some answers, but DNA doesn't tell who you are, it doesn't tell what I'm thinking right now, it doesn't tell when I'm going to decide to go home. The government already is probably collecting this post and having it combed through for keywords at the NSA facilities and that tells a helluva lot more about me than my DNA.

 

The thing that I would really oppose is having the results of DNA tests available to health insurance companies. I'll grant that one, but you're not necessarily going to sequence an entire person's genome to do a criminal test match (in fact that ought to be really unnecessary).

 

You can't really ignore the slippery slope because that's how our system is designed. Day 1 there was no justification for unreasonable searches and seizures. 200 years later there are a number of them, some of which are pretty bogus IMO. Our rights keep getting chipped away.

 

And I think you're thinking too short term here. DNA testing will eventually become instantaneous, so having the government collect a database of everyone just means they can track you anywhere and everywhere you go. Why on earth would we want that?

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure you liberals agree with Scalia's opinion on this one (I do for sure).

 

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/deskto..._2013_Court_Opi

yup

 

Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an air plane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.

 

I therefore dissent, and hope that today’s incursion upon the Fourth Amendment, like an earlier one, will some day be repudiated.

[Balta1701]

You can't really ignore the slippery slope because that's how our system is designed. Day 1 there was no justification for unreasonable searches and seizures. 200 years later there are a number of them, some of which are pretty bogus IMO. Our rights keep getting chipped away.

 

And I think you're thinking too short term here. DNA testing will eventually become instantaneous, so having the government collect a database of everyone just means they can track you anywhere and everywhere you go. Why on earth would we want that?

The government already has the ability to track where virtually anyone is. Ever use a credit card or a cell phone?

[Balta1701]

What if the government is your insurance company?

If the Department of Justice is running Medicare, we have bigger problems than this ruling.

[StrangeSox]

I'm still unconvinced about why this is obviously a bad thing.

 

I'm confused as to why requiring a warrant before conducting a search of someone's body in non-exigent circumstances and without direct suspicion of a specific crime is anything but a breach of the 4th amendment and a bad thing.

[StrangeSox]

If the Department of Justice is running Medicare, we have bigger problems than this ruling.

I'm pretty sure you'd be flipping out, and rightfully so, if your insurance provider required you to submit DNA samples to their database.

[Balta1701]

No, but the DNA would tell you if I had 1 drop of x blood.

 

The DNA would tell you if I had some sort of recessive trait that they govt deemed unworthy of living/reproducing.

 

Or maybe I figure out some sort of disease/virus/weapon that attacks only people with certain DNA. Or I genetically engineer something to go after those people.

 

I dont like my name on lists, history suggests that I am correct in that thinking.

I should also note that the Maryland law in question and the database in use there only use non-coded sections of DNA to match. In other words, the Maryland database contains none of this information and none of it is collected or recorded. You could not get any of that information from what Maryland puts into their database.

[EvilMonkey]

I should also note that the Maryland law in question and the database in use there only use non-coded sections of DNA to match. In other words, the Maryland database contains none of this information and none of it is collected or recorded. You could not get any of that information from what Maryland puts into their database.

Just like the new scanners at airports don't store or keep the 'pictures' they take, when we find out that many of them do. Got it.

[Texsox]

Interesting comments. I've complained before about random drug checks for employees, I always felt you needed some cause. Is getting arrested cause for searching your DNA? I am leaning towards this being a good police technique but I do see problems such as false positives. I'd be inclined to toss out profiling and keep DNA gathering.

[iamshack]

So really the huge difference here between fingerprints and DNA testing is the turnaround time? I'm not sure why that even has 4th amendment implications...

 

I thought the main point was to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Why is fingerprinting allowed under some bs "administrative" excuse, when essentially, it is just a slightly less precise way of doing the exact same thing as DNA testing? Well, quite simply, because without it, we'd have a more difficult time holding suspects and solving crimes. Scalia mentions that even if we did have instantaneous (or darn near) DNA results, it would be a redundancy anyway. However, I fail to see why we can't use fingerprinting to establish identification and DNA testing to provide more precise crime investigation?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, and I apologize in advance if I am, as I never had a ton of interest in Criminal Procedure, and so I have forgotten much of the details, but if I get picked up for a DUI, and they arrest and fingerprint me, and then it turns out my fingerprints are entering the database for the first time as a result of this arrest, and I am then matched to a previous unsolved crime, they can arrest and prosecute me for that previous crime as well, as long as we are within the statute of limitations for that particular crime?

 

If so, I fail to see the difference here. Essentially, Scalia is going to argue that the key distinction lies in the time to process the test? I really fail to see the 4th Amendment considerations if I can utilize the fingerprints to establish identification and justify holding the arrestee until the proper procedural events can be carried out.

 

Furthermore, how is fingerprinting essentially just an identification tool, when if my fingerprints have not been entered into any database, they will not serve any purpose of identification? Fingerprints are every bit an unreasonable search and seizure as DNA collection, with the mere exception that today's technology allows fingerprinting to be done in 30 minutes as opposed to 30 days. It isn't as if someone is going to be held for 30 days or 90 days absent any other evidence of identification while we wait for the DNA results to be returned.

 

Finally, how can one argue that it will be impossible to limit DNA collection only to serious arrests? Fingerprinting does not happen when I am given a speeding ticket; why does it follow that DNA collection will inevitably happen in such situations?

Edited June 10, 2013 by iamshack